Raid0: 2x 640gb vs. 2x74gb raptors or suggestion?

B

bubbakja

Weaksauce
Joined
May 29, 2006
Messages
81
I'm looking to go to a raid 0 setup for my OS/Game storage. I already have several terabytes for video/photos/etc... This setup will strictly be for OS, Programs, and Games.

I currently have 1 74gb raptor as my OS drive, but with games creeping over the 10gig mark I feel the need to increase my capacity.

I plan on installing either windows 7 64 or the copy of vista 64 ultimate edition I got awhile back. (dunno if that makes a difference)

Should I get a second 74gb raptor drive ($99 at newegg) or go for 2 640gb WD's which would be roughly $140. I only care about speed here, I would be perfectly fine with the roughly 132gb or so the 2 raptors would provide for games and whatnot.

I am on a budget of under $200. If you have a better suggestion please feel free to make it. I plan on using the integrated raid controller in my Asus P5W Dh Deluxe mobo.

I searched around, but didn't really see any specific threads related to budget raiding. Thanks
 
If you don't need the full space of 2x640gb, and have Intel Matrix Raid on your motherboard, get 2 WD640 drives and configure a <200gb Raid0 partition and leave the rest unallocated. You'll get very good access times.
 
I recently replaced my 74gb Raptors with some 640gb AALS's.
Feels about the same performance wise but the AALS's offer more storage space and are much quieter.
In theory they also have faster read/write and, when capacity is equal, lower average access times.

Benchmarks are as follows...

2x 74gb Raptor ADFD in RAID0 (full)
WD740ADFD_x2_RAID0_148gb.png


2x 640gb AALS in RAID0 (short-stroked to ~148gb)
WD6401AALS_x2_RAID0_148gb.png


2x 640gb AALS in RAID0 (short-stroked to ~256gb)
WD6401AALS_x2_RAID0_256gb.png


2x 640gb AALS in RAID0 (full)
WD6401AALS_x2_RAID0_full.png


All benched on [email protected] / 4gb / ICH10R / WinXP
 
Hey, thanks for posting the benchmarks.

After some recent bad things in my life, I am going to embark on a little retail therapy, and upgrade my storage. I am considering a new mobo with Intel Matrix, and was wondering what the max read throughput for that controller was?

I am considering 3-4 Vraptors or SSDs in Raid 0, but will pair it back if I am going to saturate the controllers capabilities.

Thanks

Don
 
paxious - thanks for posting those benchmarks. What was the stripe size? If I were to guess, writeback cache was disabled, correct?
 
JRS, Happy to share them.

Stripe size on both is 32k.
Writeback was enabled for the AALS. (burst rate should be a clue)
The Raptors I'm not sure, most likely writeback was turned off.

I have now turned writeback off on the AALS's.
Aside from the inflated burst rate I don't notice a difference.
However, it seems to have fixed an intermittent lockup issue I was having.
Further testing required on that issue...
 
It looks like I have the raid matrix on my motherboard, so that looks to be the route to go. Thanks for the help guys, good info as always.
 
JRS said:
If you don't need the full space of 2x640gb, and have Intel Matrix Raid on your motherboard, get 2 WD640 drives and configure a <200gb Raid0 partition and leave the rest unallocated. You'll get very good access times.
Click to expand...

What is the logic of leaving it unallocated? Your first partition will be on the fastest tracks, so there is no harm in partitioning the rest. Just use it as media storage and backups, just not common working files. I would really recommend an intelligent defragger software that would then put your most used system/program files on the outer portion of that 200GB partition. It makes a huge differance. I use Ulimate defrag 2008, and it rates my access time now at 2.2ms. I have read mixed info on wether defraging matters on SSD's.
Ideally there would be a seperate drive(s) for programs. And then there is the whole issue of the paging file as ideally it would also be on its own drive, or if needed at all given ample ram.
 
The theory behind short-stroking the drive is to configure it so only a small portion of the drive will be used and only that small portion will ever be accessed. The result is signficantly increased access times. The "harm" in partitioning the rest is then the same heads/spindles, etc must serve the entire drive instead of being dedicated to a small portion of the drive.

Look at paxious' image for "2x 640gb AALS in RAID0 (short-stroked to ~256gb)" - what would probably happen if he created a second partition using the remaining space, and then while he ran HDTune on the first, he also copied a large file to the second? The performance of the first partion will probably stink.

Obviously if the second partion is used just for storage and rarely accessed, then the impact would be minimal to the first, so one has to gauge which is more appropriate - there is no "right answer for all" here.

bubbakja stated in his original post that he already had plenty of storage and was looking to setup Raid0 for his OS/games. So the implied request is "I gots storage, now what is the best way to speed up my boot/os response/gaming experience with Raid0". I think the best answer to his question is what I suggested. I do not suggest that everyone should immediately short stroke a pair of Raid0 drives and leave the rest unformatted.

He has storage, so there is no logic in him using the rest of those drives if his primary purpose with them is to boost his boot/os/game experience.

One last thought, look at the pasious' image for "2x 640gb AALS in RAID0 (full)". Note how the performance really goes down in the later half - this is typical of all single drives too. The second half of a 7200rpm drive performs worse than a 5400rpm drive. If you don't need that space, don't use it and reap the performance benefit.
 
Ya, this is just silly. There is simply no speed decrease unless you place often used files on the second partition. In fact if you use an "intelligent defrag" software, you could leave the whole drive as one partition and it would automatically move all of the most used files to the fastest tracks and the never used files to the inside. But as we all know that is a rediculous bitch to image for backups (1.2 TB Yikes!!) so a smaller partition is far more practicle. No one has "too much storage" as to piss 1 TB of drive space down the drain by not even making a partition. Stuff it with backups, or whatever, but there is NO loss in performance by having a second partition and you gain a free TB!!
The trick is to put needed files on the first partition of any drive. Then use "intelligent defrag" software to optimize the first partition to move the most used files to the outter most tracks. Use all 2nd partitions as storage, instead of pissing that space down the drain. "short-stack" is a poor mans "intelligent defrag". The trick is to do both, and then not waste the extra space.
 
You may think its silly... but on the "short stroke" side we have paxious' images as evidence. If you want to convince us, lets see yours.
 
JRS said:
You may think its silly... but on the "short stroke" side we have paxious' images as evidence. If you want to convince us, lets see yours.
Click to expand...

the image would be the same if there is nothing accessed on the second partition during HDTune. If you want I'll screenshot his image and repost it for you and pretend there is another partition sitting there doing nothing :)

Just don't put any regularly accessed files on the second partition and you'll be fine - no page/swap files, no apps, etc, just purely for monthly backups of your other storage drive. During the monthly backup the benchmark image WILL suck but that's only for those 10 minutes per month.
 
Agreed, I've done the same myself (Samsung F1 640GB, 60 gigs for system, 100 gigs for games, then the rest is seldom accessed storage). I get good speeds and all is well.. :p
 
JRS said:
You may think its silly... but on the "short stroke" side we have paxious' images as evidence. If you want to convince us, lets see yours.
Click to expand...

I didn't say "short stroke" (or "small first partition") was silly.
I said leaving perfectly good storage space unused, in a false bid for ultimate speed, is silly. And more important then all is an intelligent defrager.
Did you read my post?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top